SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5254, 25 January 1878, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

Thursday, November 24. (Before his Honor Chief Justice Prendergast.) ■ COMMON JURY CASE—CLAYTON V. ISAACS. This action was brought to being the amount of deposit-money paid on the 'purchase of a piece of leasehold nroperty, the extent of which was alleged to have been misrepresented by defendant. , Mr, Travers appeared for tho plaintiff, and Mr. Barton" for the defendant, who denied all the allegations contained in the declaration. The following jury was sworn;—William Jameson (foreman), John Drew, Frederick Jeffay, John Bertie, Henry S. Cohen, George Clarke, John Cavanagh, Michael Bohan, James Barber, William P. Barber, Salvatore Cemino, and William Clark. In opening the case Mr. Travers remarked that the matter had already come before an inferior Court, but the magistrate treated it as one in which he had no jurisdiction, and therefore plaintiff was driven to proceed in the Supreme Court, or altogether abandon his claim. On the 3rd June last plaintiff purchased at an auction, of defendant, some leasehold property advertised for sale. The property was described in the particulars of sale as having a frontage to Lambfcon-quay of 53ft., whereas it only had a frontage of 3Sft. Sin. Instead of being a parallelogram, with all four sides of equal length, it was an ’ irregular shaped piece of land. Plaintiff was induced to buy the laud for £250, on the faith of what was contained in the particulars of sale, and paid a deposit of £lO. The contract was not in writing, but he (Mr. Travers) contended that if it were shown that plaintiff had tbe means of ascertaining the real extent of the land, then he was liable for any misrepresentation which was grossly untrue. Mr. Barton submitted that a non-suit should follow on the opening statement of plaintiff's case. It had been admitted there was no fraudulent intent, and ho (Mr. Barton) cited authorities to show that no action could lie for a false representation, unless the person making it knew it to be untrue, and made it to gain an advantage by doing so. Itwas further necessary to sho w that what defendant asserted had occasioned damage to plaintiff. Mr. Allan, Registrar of the Supreme Court, produced au affidavit which had been given to him by Mr. Fitzherbert or Mr. Barrett, a clerk in Messrs, Barton and Fitzherbert’s. One of these gentleman applied to him to conduct the sale under the Conveyancing Ordinance Act, 1860. Tho property was described as lot 22 of tho subdivision of Pipitea Pa. Witness was requested to employ Messrs. Beauciamp, Campbell, and Co. The mortgage was left with them, aud witness was present at the sale, and was supplied with account sales, which he produced. Arthur Beauchamp, a member of the firm of Beauchamp, Campbell, and Co., auctiouee's, said he received iusti uctions from Mr. Alim for the sale, of lot 22, Pipitea Pa. He afterwards received regular conditions of sale as hi • instructions. The advertisement (produced) in the New Zealand Times, was not put in by witness, but lie held tho auction in pursuance of it. The property was put up, and Mr. Clayton became the purchaser as the highest bidder. When witness road the conditions of sale, plaintiff remarked that he had seen the land and had made himself aoquamted with it. John Newton Coleridge, surveyor and engineer, deposed to having made a survey of lot 22 at Pipitea Pa, and to the measurement, which was below that Stated in tho advertisement. Plaintiff's case had not concluded when the Court adjourned at half-past 5 o clock until 10 o’clock next (this) morning.